Author Topic: Your view on recent Middle East crisis  (Read 11188 times)

Giancarlo

  • Guest
Re: Your view on recent Middle East crisis
« Reply #60 on: August 16, 2006, 08:23:22 pm »
In all reality, I don't think so. There has always been a lot of tension between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel used the kidnapping of their two soldiers as an excuse to invade Lebanon. But guess what? It wasn’t Hezbollah that suffered! It was the civilians whose homes have been destroyed and whose mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, etc. have died. And Bush refused to intervene while all of this was happening …. supposedly all in the name of “terrorism” … what a joke! Of course how could we, as US Americans, have any credence in brokering a cease fire when we invaded Iraq? (Can you guess that I don’t agree with Bush’s policies?  :-\)

I think there are problems on both sides, and I think you are not criticizing Hezbollah enough. Hezbollah suffered heavy blows and much of its capacity to make war was crippled, but it was not eliminated. I am not changing my position on this. Israel had a right to defend itself, and Hezbollah is responsible for the suffering of the Lebanese people.

How could the US intervene? What were they to do exactly? I mean, in 1982, over 200 US Marines were killed in Beirut by the same group in question, Hezbollah. Do you think the US would really want to intervene militarily? If anything a cease fire was reached by both the French and US governments. So I think it is not quite far to accuse the US of inaction.

I was for the war in Iraq too.

"Why, oh why couldn’t have Gore, the true winner, become our president?"

I despise both, but even I know that Gore was not the true winner. But they both (Bush and Gore, and Bush and Kerry for that matter) are idiots... so what can I say...

Offline dly64

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
Re: Your view on recent Middle East crisis
« Reply #61 on: August 16, 2006, 09:05:24 pm »
I think there are problems on both sides, and I think you are not criticizing Hezbollah enough. Hezbollah suffered heavy blows and much of its capacity to make war was crippled, but it was not eliminated. I am not changing my position on this. Israel had a right to defend itself, and Hezbollah is responsible for the suffering of the Lebanese people.

How could the US intervene? What were they to do exactly? I mean, in 1982, over 200 US Marines were killed in Beirut by the same group in question, Hezbollah. Do you think the US would really want to intervene militarily? If anything a cease fire was reached by both the French and US governments. So I think it is not quite far to accuse the US of inaction.

Did I ever say that the US should respond with military action? No. I am a pacifist. What I am saying is that we could have tried to broker a cease-fire. Our current administration does not understand the meaning of diplomacy. It believes in the “gun-slinger” mentality … “shoot and ask questions later.” I cannot condone this type of irresponsible and irreverent view of human life.

I am not siding with Hezbollah. But I can see why the Lebanese people are more supportive of them than they were before. They see Hezbollah as the saviors. And, IMO, the US is a terrorist target … more than ever before …. because of our policies and practices. Okay …. I’m ready to get slammed for that opinion. But, that’s what I believe.

As a side-bar note …. Al Gore won the popular vote and it was a sad day when the partisan Supreme Court put the whiny, irresponsible George Bush in the White House (I am not being literal here. But it was their votes that paved the way for Bush to become our next president). And, as for intelligence (i.e. a high IQ), Gore has it, Bush doesn’t. Lastly, if Gore would have been our president, the US would not be in the quagmire that we are engaged in currently. The Middle East is a house of cards. Bush started messing with it and now everything is beginning to tumble.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. I can’t change your mind and vice versa. So I value you what you have to say, even if I can’t agree with it.
Diane

"We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em."

Giancarlo

  • Guest
Re: Your view on recent Middle East crisis
« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2006, 04:31:23 pm »
Did I ever say that the US should respond with military action? No. I am a pacifist. What I am saying is that we could have tried to broker a cease-fire. Our current administration does not understand the meaning of diplomacy. It believes in the “gun-slinger” mentality … “shoot and ask questions later.” I cannot condone this type of irresponsible and irreverent view of human life.

While I do not like the present adminstration, I must respectfully disagree. The adminstration was seeking a diplomatic option, and one was attained by agreement with the French government. So I really don't see how your views are accurate. Keep in mind, I have my fair share of disagreements with this adminstration.

Quote
I am not siding with Hezbollah. But I can see why the Lebanese people are more supportive of them than they were before. They see Hezbollah as the saviors. And, IMO, the US is a terrorist target … more than ever before …. because of our policies and practices. Okay …. I’m ready to get slammed for that opinion. But, that’s what I believe.

Actually this is a false view, that is not correct at all. Why? Because the Lebanese people really want nothing to do with Hezbollah and are fully supportive of Lebanese Army troops moving in. I've spoken with countless Lebanese who live here in the US, and they too are supportive of the Lebanese Army, and utterly hate Hezbollah. It is not my fault you can't look at what good is being done here. They hate Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is just full of hot air. The US has always been a terrorist target (more then ever before? I disagree with that too). You can believe in what you want. Fine by me. But I'm going to voice my viewpoints also. This is why I refuse to recognize those on the left or right as viable leaders.

Either way, there IS AN AGREEMENT for 15,000 possibly French-led UN Peacekeeping Troops, backed by 15,000 Lebanese Army troops with Armored Units... to take charge in the Southern areas of Lebanon. Don't get me wrong, I would of liked to see this happen before... and it is awfully sad that it took a one month war that resulted in the deaths of close to 1,000 people (added on both sides) to get to this agreement. I think it is rather pathetic. Of course, we must also look back at the complacency of the Clinton adminstration with regards to the DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. Millions died there and very few people said anything about it. It took several million dead for anything to be done.

Rather then taking an inactive isolationist strategy of the world (as you want), I want a hands on approach with respect to culture differences.

Quote
As a side-bar note …. Al Gore won the popular vote and it was a sad day when the partisan Supreme Court put the whiny, irresponsible George Bush in the White House (I am not being literal here. But it was their votes that paved the way for Bush to become our next president). And, as for intelligence (i.e. a high IQ), Gore has it, Bush doesn’t. Lastly, if Gore would have been our president, the US would not be in the quagmire that we are engaged in currently. The Middle East is a house of cards. Bush started messing with it and now everything is beginning to tumble.

Okay for one, I'm a non-partisan so lets just clarify this one. Second, both of them were whiny. Irresponsible? Well I would have to meet both to see for myself. Third, Gore didn't win the election (as additional recounts showed that the lead in Flordia was growing for Bush). Finally, IQ tests don't mean anything. If an IQ test was geared towards math and science, I would do poorly on it. Would it mean I'm an idiot? No. It just simply shows those are not my strong points (rather say modern history and political science are). If Gore would have been our president, I would think the same things would happen. And you know very little about the middle east as it is. Since when was Bush messing with it? Iraq is one thing, but Lebanon? The US is not in any way involved in Lebanon besides the donation of $50 million or so to the Lebanese Government for its military, as well as sizable equpiment donations.

Proof: http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/English/Equipments.asp

The US Administration provided the LAF with military equipment at symbolic prices:
750 Armored Personel Carriers
3000 Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
bullet    
27 CSB Bridge Boats

So don't tell me the US government isn't doing anything to help the Lebanese government.

I usually don't like defending the president, as I really don't like him, but I have problems with people launching unfair attacks on the US.

Quote
You are certainly welcome to your opinion as I am to mine. I can’t change your mind and vice versa. So I value you what you have to say, even if I can’t agree with it.


And you certainly didn't.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2006, 04:35:23 pm by Giancarlo »

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,581
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: Your view on recent Middle East crisis
« Reply #63 on: September 02, 2006, 09:18:02 am »
My question is, Did Bush ask the Israelis to start an advance on Lebanon in order to deflect attention from the disaster in Iraq??

I still wonder about this. Seems far-fetched and Syriana-ish. But such things are in the history books. Or, could it be a case of Bush and the Israelis starting some secret maneuvers in Lebanon, which got out of control, so to fix it they decided to start a war? Or is it an innocent and internal matter, where Lebanon is split in two with factions fighting against each other, and the war is an attempt to heal itself. I don't have a vote on this matter, just questions.  :-\
Too much to do. . .I don't have time to get old!